‘The doctrine of adverse possession arises from the Limitation Act 1980. Section 15(1) provides that no action shall be brought by any person to recover any land after the expiration of 12 years from the date on which the right of action accrued. Sections 1-7 provide that at the expiration of the period of 12 years the title of the paper owner is extinguished. The claim of a person to a possessory title was therefore based on the negative effect of the extinguishment of the paper owner’s title, and the basic principle that what is required for a case in trespass is not ownership, but possession or a right to possession.’

‘We like being in control. As lawyers, we want to be in control. What is more, sometimes the law requires our clients to be in control. And the law determines if a person is truly in control. In the legal context instances where control may be an issue include the control of companies and the control of vehicles. In the field of property, the concept of control rears its head in connection with adverse possession.’

‘The Court of Appeal considered the clash of s.144 LASPO and the rules on adverse possession, on appeal from the Administrative Court. Our report on the Admin Court judgment is here, and, to be honest, I’m not sure that the Court of Appeal adds much to that judgment. Much the same arguments were rehearsed and much the same conclusion is reached.’

‘The criminalisation of people who were trespassers through living in a relevant residential building by pursuant to section 144(1) of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 had not prevented time running for applications for registration of title by adverse possession.’

‘Way back when s.144 LASPO 2012 was first proposed, I noted that one of the unaddressed questions (indeed a question that nobody even thought to consider) was how s.144 would interact with statute and case law on adverse possession.’

“A tenant facing anti-social behaviour injunction proceedings was not prevented from applying to register his possessory title with the land registry by virtue of paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 6 to the Land Registration Act 2002.”

“An oral compromise agreement was not void by virtue of section 2(1) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 merely because it had a disposing effect. The compromise agreement was not an agreement for ‘the sale or other disposition of an interest in land’ within the meaning of section 2(1), so that despite being oral it was a valid contract.”

“To defeat a claim to title to land by adverse possession under the Land Registration Act 2002 on the basis of an interruption which stopped time running, the paper title owner was required to show possession to the exclusion of the person claiming adverse possession.”

“The policy of the Land Registry in dealing with applications for registration of title to unregistered land based on adverse possession, as embodied in Land Registry Practice Guidance 5 at 6.4, was neither unlawful nor irrational.”

“There was no good reason to confine the jurisdiction of the registrar under para 5(a) of Sch 4 to the Land Registration Act 2002 to the correction of procedural mistakes. If any statutory condition which was a prerequisite for registration was shown not to have been satisfied, there was a mistake in the register which the registrar had power to correct.”

“An offer by a squatter to buy the property from the owners in a letter marked ‘without prejudice’ could not be used as evidence that she had acknowledged the owners’ title to the property so as to defeat her claim to adverse possession.”

“Where an occupier disputing possession proceedings made an offer to the owners to buy the property in a ‘without prejudice’ letter, which was rejected, but later claimed that the title of the property had passed to her because of 12 years’ adverse possession, the owners could not rely on the letter as evidence that she had acknowledged their title to the property so as to defeat her claim.”

“Where a mortgagor was in exclusive possession of his mortgaged property, and the mortgagee had for more than 12 years failed to protect its security by taking steps to enforce its right to possession or to obtain payment from the mortgagor, such possession was ‘adverse possession’ for the purposes of the Limitation Act 1980 and ran in the mortgagor’s favour and against the mortgagee; and the latter’s right of action, having accrued more than 12 years before, was extinguished under the Act.”

“Where a party contended that a right to property had been breached, the English court had to apply a margin of appreciation in taking into account the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg.”
The Times, 11th February 2008

“The Court of Appeal should follow a decision of the European Court of Human Rights that the law of adverse possession as it stood prior to the Land Registration Act 2002 did not violate the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions, guaranteed by art 1 of Protocol No 1 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.”